Peter Joseph Polinski v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1568
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-02136-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
Decided: October 16, 2025
______________________
P ETER J OSEPH P OLINSKI, Marcy, NY, pro se.
T ARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , YAAKOV ROTH .
______________________
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 2
Peter Polinski, appearing pro se, appeals from the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) de-
cision dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. See
Polinski v. United States, No. 24-2136C, 2025 WL 462603
(Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2025) (Decision). For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2024, Mr. Polinski filed a complaint
in the Claims Court alleging the “unlawful seizure” of Gen-
eral Services Administration (GSA) bonds and “a bill of ex-
change valued at $66,000,000” by the Richfield Town Court
as well as misappropriation by the New York State Treas-
urer. SAppx 8.1 He claimed violations of his rights under
the Fourth, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments, as well as
damages arising from tortious actions committed by the
Government. He sought $468,000,000 in compensatory
and punitive damages.
Mr. Polinski moved to proceed in forma pauperis, but
his application was incomplete because he omitted his date
of last employment, amount of salary per month, and ex-
planation of how he was paying his expenses. SAppx 4.
The Claims Court deemed the motion defective and ordered
Mr. Polinski to either file a completed in forma pauperis
application, or pay the filing fee by February 10, 2025. Id.
The Claims Court warned that if Mr. Polinski “fail[ed] to
comply with this order, this action shall be dismissed with-
out prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 of the
Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.” Id.
Mr. Polinski filed another in forma pauperis applica-
tion on January 30, 2025. On February 11, 2025, the court
dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, for failure to
prosecute. The Claims Court explained that Mr. Polinski’s
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
with the government’s informal response brief.
Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 3
second application was “again incomplete” and “lack[ed]
credibility” because he stated that he had no expenses, no
income for six years, did not own any property, and only
had 33 cents in the bank. Decision, 2025 WL 462603 at *1.
The court entered judgment on February 14, 2025.
SAppx 2.
Mr. Polinski now appeals to this court. We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
Under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims, the Claims Court may dismiss a
case on its own motion, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute
or to comply with these rules or a court order.” RCFC 41(b).
We apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the
Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d
1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The Claims Court issued an order directing Mr. Polin-
ski to either file a completed in forma pauperis application
or pay a filing fee. SAppx 4. The order explicitly informed
Mr. Polinski that his case would be dismissed if he failed
to comply by February 10, 2025. Id. Because Mr. Polinski
failed to file a completed form or pay the required filing fee
by the deadline, the Claims Court did not abuse its discre-
tion in dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims. See Claude, 899 F.2d at 1183 (explaining that we
will not disturb a decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute
unless “we are left with a definite and firm conviction that
the [Claims Court] committed a clear error of judgment”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
On appeal, Mr. Polinski does not address his failure to
comply with the Claims Court’s order. Instead, he argues
that the court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. However, the Claims Court did not reach the
Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 4
jurisdictional question, dismissing solely for failure to pros-
ecute. Decision, 2025 WL 462603 at *1; SAppx 2. Accord-
ingly, we need not address Mr. Polinski’s jurisdictional
arguments.
We have considered Mr. Polinksi’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the decision of the Claims Court.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 4 of 4 --